_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India
Case Citation - AIR 2015 SC 1523
Relevant Acts and Sections -
Parties Involved-
Petitioner - Shreya Singhal
Respondent - Union of India
Facts of the Case
There was a Bandh announced by Shiv Sena in Maharashtra on the death of political leader Bal Thakrey.
Two girls named Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan expressed their displeasure with the bandh by commenting on Facebook and liking it.
They were immediately arrested by Mumbai police under section 66A of the Information Technology Act for posting and commenting, which could cause irritation and hatred in the minds of the general public.
Soon the girls were released, but it attracted a lot of public protest and media attention who claimed that the arrest violated the Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.
It was further emphasized that police officers abuse their power in terms of Section 66 of the I.T Act, which allows police officers to investigate a case without a warrant. It has led to mass arrests of innocent people by simply expressing their views and opinions towards the Government, which was Obnoxious Content.
Following the 2013 incident, the Central Government issued a directive in which no one can be arrested without the consent of the Inspector-General of Police.
Immediately several applications were filed together under Article 32 of the constitution that stating that Section 66 A of the I.T. shouldn’t be valid anymore.
The Supreme Court filed all these applications under one P.I.L, and the case was named after Shreya Singhal and the Union of India.
Issues of the Case
Whether Section 66A of the I.T Act is violative of Freedom of Speech & Expression?
Arguments from Petitioner
The first objection raised by the appellant is that Article 66A of the I.T Act 2000 violates the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution.
Freedom of Speech and Expressions is essential for Democracy.
In Romesh Thapper Vs. The State of Madras, the Hon’ble Court noted that “Freedom of Speech & of Press lay at the foundation of all democratic organization, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of process of popular government is possible.”
In the papers of Sakal Ltd. & Oth. Vs. The Union of Indian Courts stated that “Freedom of speech and expression of opinion is of paramount importance under a democratic constitution which envisages changes in the composition of legislatures and governments and must be preserved.”
Article 19 of the UDHR also states that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Therefore, it can be said that freedom of speech and expression is very important, and people have the freedom to express their views and opinions freely, but Section 66A of the I.T Act did not support this freedom. It stated: “Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine” which was clearly contrary to Article 19 of the Constitution.
The applicant's subsequent dispute over the terms used in Section 66A - causing harassment, disruption, danger, obstruction, insults is not included under the Reasonable Restriction of Freedom of Speech and Disclosure provided under section 2 of Article 19.
Freedom of Speech and Expression is incomplete. Certain restrictions need to be set in the name of state security, friendly relations with the outside world, social order, morality, contempt of court, morality, humiliation. However, these limitations do not need to be extreme. There must be a clear connection between the limitation and the goal to be achieved. The limitation must be for the purpose stated in sections 2 to 6 of Article 19, which is not satisfied with Section 66A of the I.T Act.
The third objective of the appellant is that Section 66A is not inherently clear as the terms used in this Section may be interpreted differently by different individuals according to their needs and wants. What may offend one may not be so bad to another. Therefore, it is very prone to abuse. A legislature with a vague meaning should be declared invalid.
The appellant, therefore, argued that this misinterpreted section should be declared by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
The final argument raised is that Section 66 A violates Article 14 of the Constitution as there is no clear distinction between those who use the Internet as a means of communication and others who use other forms of communication. It is discriminatory to differentiate between networks and other citizens of the country and to punish those who are comfortable under Section 66 A by expressing their views on events.
Arguments from Respondent
The defendant defended the legality of Section 66A Constitution and argued that the legislature is in a better position to understand and appreciate the needs of the people. The court will declare that the provision is unconstitutional only if it clearly violates Part III of the Constitution, which was not Section 66A of the Constitution.
The next argument raised is that it is possible that harassment of this section by the police officers would not be a reason to declare that this section is inconsistent.
Another argument raised by the defendant is that language ambiguity cannot be the basis for declaring that the law is unconstitutional when the declaration is legally binding and does not contradict. In addition, the language of the provision includes all the terms by which one may use the Internet to infringe on the rights of others.
Judgment of the Case
The Supreme Court concurred with the applicant's arguments and held that Section 66A had a negative impact on Freedom of Speech and Interpretation and that the words used were not a basis for imposing the Right Limitations on this freedom. The loose language of Article 66A can create violence and will therefore damage justice and social justice and therefore need to be curtailed.
The court also made a distinction between “Hate Speech & Free Speech. Hate Speech is subjective in nature. Any innocent comment cannot be put under the preview of Hate Speech”. The Court addressed three key issues in the context of Freedom of Speech - Discussion, Advocacy Incitement. It is where the discussion or support of the topic reaches the limit of the promotion of the violation applies to the limit of freedom.
The court, however, denied the applicant's argument that there was no clear difference between the means of communication through print and live speech compared to online communication. There are understandable differences as the internet provides a platform for expressing one's opinions by paying for extraordinary expenses or sometimes without the cost of opposing another form of information transfer. With the help of the Internet, data reaches billions in just seconds.
Therefore, this petition of the applicant challenging Article 14 of the Constitution fails.
Similar Cases
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " How far can your "Right to Speech" protect you? " by clicking the button below.